/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200109.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, January 9, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 7

                            Headlines

1267 CAFE: Daly Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool, Unpaid Overtime
625 OCEAN: Castillo Sues Over Denied Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
ALLERGAN INC: Dobson Files Suit in PI New Jersey
ALLERGAN INC: Rimkus Files PI Suit in New Jersey
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Jan. 14 Deadline

ARQULE INC: Faces Smith Securities Class Suit Over Sale to Merck
ATECH LOGISTICS: Wright Files Suit in Oregon
AUSTRALIA: Court Has Yet Rule on Cattle Export Ban Class Action
BAXTER INT'L: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Jan. 24 Deadline
BAXTER INT'L: Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set for Jan. 24

C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Katz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CANADA: Manitoba First Nation Launches Water Class Action
CANOPY GROWTH: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Jan. 20 Deadline
CAPITAL CONCRETE: Euceda Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under NYLL
CBL: Faces Second Shareholder Class Action in New Zealand

COACH SERVICES: Mendez Files ADA Suit in New York
COMPASS GROUP: Jilek Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
DOLAR SHOP: Servers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime, Slashed Tips
DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar Seeks OT Wages for Chauffeur Drivers
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Wright Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas

FIAT CHRYSLER: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
FIELDWORK INC: Advanced Derma TCPA Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
FITBIT INC: Thompson Seeks to Enjoin Proposed Sale to Google
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Sayce Securities Suit in California
GATE GOURMET: Stokes Suit Over BIPA Violation Moved to N.D. Ill.

GENESCO INC: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GRUBHUB INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Jan. 21 Deadline
HAWTHORNE LAB INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in New York
HEXO CORP: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of Jan. 27 Deadline
I.C. SYSTEM: Silver Files FCRA Suit in E.D. New York

J. C. PENNEY: Bina Sues Over Failure to Provide Suitable Seats
JAI BALAJI: Herrera Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Gotay Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
JONES DAY: Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs Want Class Action
KEALOHA SUSHI: Xu Files FLSA Suit in New York

LAWINGER CONSULTING: Patton Files Suit in Minnesota
LJM PRESERVATION: Investors Settle Class Action Suit
LYFT: Drivers File Minimum Wage, OT Class Action in New Jersey
MICHELANGLEO PIZZERIA: Mejia Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
MOVE INC: Maness Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

NET 1 UEPS: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
NEXTDOOR.COM INC: Vaccaro Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
NPM STAFFING: Stephenson Labor Suit Removed to to S.D. California
OASIS CATERING: Palacios Seeks Minimum Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
ONE BRANDS: Misrepresents ONE Protein Bars, Sebastian Alleges

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Fishon Files Suit Over False Ad
PLANTRONICS INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Jan. 13 Deadline
PLANTRONICS INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Jan. 13 Deadline
PLANTRONICS INC: Pawar Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
POP A LOCK: Improperly Pays Technicians' OT Wages, Tewelde Says

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Jan. 27 Deadline
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action
QUAD/GRAPHICS: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Class Action
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Frampton Living Trust Hits Share Price Drop
RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Pak Claims Merger With Venus Concept Unfair

RIPPLE LABS: Files Final Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
ROSE LAW FIRM: Engelbrecht Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
ROSEBUD LENDING: Sued Over Usurious Loan Rates
SEALED AIR: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
SEATTLE CHILDREN'S: Stritmatter Kessler Files Class Action

SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fleming Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
SOUTHERN ALUMINUM: Webb Seeks OT Pay for Hourly-Paid Employees
STANCE INC: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Claims
STAR SNACKS: Lowery Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
STRYKER CORPORATION: Picetti Labor Suit Moved to N.D. California

SUFFOLK ASPHALT: Asphalt Supply Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Pinnell Suit Over Violations of ERISA
TIBETAN JAPANESE: Secundino Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Faces McNear Suit Over Decline in Share Price
UNDER ARMOUR: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Class Action

UNITI GROUP: Queder Sues Over Decline of Common Stock Prices
UP FINTECH: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Class Action
UP FINTECH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
VANS INC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: UK Dieselgate Class Action Commences

WANDA SPORTS: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Jan. 17 Deadline
WAWA INC: Fisher Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
WAWA INC: Roessle Files Fraud Class Suit in Pennsylvania
WOOLWORTHS GROUP: Sued for Underpaying Supermarket Workers
WSP USA INC: Ford Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages

YUNJI INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Jan. 13 Deadline
YUNJI INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
[*] Aiken County Opts Out of National Opioid Class Action Lawsuit
[*] Companies Spent Nearly $2.5BB Defending Against Class Actions

                            *********

1267 CAFE: Daly Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool, Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antoinette Daly, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 1267 Cafe LLC, Shimon Liani and Ami Liani,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-07145 (E.D. N.Y., December 20, 2019),
seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.

Defendants operate as "Cafe K," where Daly worked as a waitress.
She generally worked over 40 hours per week without overtime pay
and was required to engage in a tip distribution scheme wherein she
must share a daily portion of her total tips with tip-ineligible
employees, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paula Lopez, Esq.
      Nicholas Fortuna, Esq.
      ALLYN & FORTUNA LLP
      1010 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (212) 213-8844
      Facsimile: (212) 213-3318
      Email: nfortuna@allynfortuna.com
             plopez@allynfortuna.com


625 OCEAN: Castillo Sues Over Denied Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Ceferino Castillo, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 625 Ocean Company and Eric
Silverstein, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07169 (E.D. N.Y., December
20, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and
redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a residential building, located
at 625 Ocean Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11226 under the name "625
Ocean Company" where Castillo was employed as a porter. He usually
worked in excess of forty hours per week but did not receive
overtime pay, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


ALLERGAN INC: Dobson Files Suit in PI New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allergan, Inc.  The
case is styled as Nicolette Dobson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allergan Inc., formerly
known as: INAMED CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA INC., ALLERGAN PLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-22121 (D.N.J., Dec. 30, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Allergan, Inc. was an American global pharmaceutical company
focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical
aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and
urologics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS, LLC
          1100 Main St., Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 945-7110
          Fax: (816) 945-7118

          Michael A. Williams, Esq.
          Williams Dirks Dameron LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 945-7175
          Fax: (816) 945-7118

The Defendants are represented by:

          James P. Muehlberger, Esq.
          Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP - KC/Grand
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
          Phone: (816) 559-2372
          Fax: (816) 421-5547


ALLERGAN INC: Rimkus Files PI Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allergan, Inc. The
case is styled as Danielle Rimkus, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allergan Inc., formerly
known as: INAMED CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA INC., ALLERGAN PLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-22114-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., Dec. 30, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Allergan, Inc. was an American global pharmaceutical company
focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical
aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and
urologics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L Dameron, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS, LLC
          1100 Main St., Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 945-7110
          Fax: (816) 945-7118

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lori C. McGroder, Esq.
          SHOOK AND HARDY, LLP
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
          Phone: (816) 474-6550
          Fax: (816) 421-5547


ARMSTRONG FLOORING: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Jan. 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Plantronics, Inc. (PLT)
Class Period: 7/2/2018 - 11/5/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-plt   

Yunji Inc. (YJ)
Class Period: American Depository Shares issued either in or after
the May 2019 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-yj   
           

Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (AFI)
Class Period: 3/6/2018 - 11/4/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-afi              

Wanda Sports Group Company Limited (WSG)
Class Period: securities issued either in or after the July 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 17, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-wsg  


If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
[GN]

ARQULE INC: Faces Smith Securities Class Suit Over Sale to Merck
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Smith, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ARQULE, INC., PATRICK J. ZENNER, TIMOTHY C. BARABE,
SUSAN L. KELLEY, RONALD M. LINDSAY, MICHAEL D. LOBERG, WILLIAM G.
MESSENGER, RAN NUSSBAUM, PAOLO PUCCI, MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.,
and ARGON MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00001-UNA (D. Del.,
Jan. 2, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
ArQule will be acquired by affiliates of Merck & Co., Inc.

On December 6, 2019, ArQule's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Merck Sharp &
Dohme Corp. and Argon Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to purchase
all of ArQule's outstanding common stock for $20.00 per share in
cash. The Tender Offer is set to expire on January 15, 2020.

On December 17, 2019, the defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 because the Solicitation Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Solicitation Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
including the Company's financial projections and the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the
Proposed Transaction, Centerview Partners LLC. With respect to
Centerview's analysis of stock price targets, the Solicitation
Statement fails to disclose: (i) the price targets observed by
Centerview in the analysis; and (ii) the sources thereof. The
Solicitation Statement also fails to disclose the timing and nature
of all communications regarding future employment and directorship
of the Company's officers and directors, including who participated
in all such communications, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of ArQule common stock. The omissions in
the Solicitation Statement are material in that a reasonable
stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on
the Proposed Transaction.

ArQule is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the research and
development of targeted therapeutics to treat cancers and rare
diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com


ATECH LOGISTICS: Wright Files Suit in Oregon
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atech Logistics, Inc.
The case is styled as Alex Wright, OBO: self and other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. Atech Logistics, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 19CV56327 (Ore. 4th Judicial Cir., Hennepin Cty., Dec. 30,
2019).

The case type is stated as "Tort - General".

Atech Logistics Inc. provides logistics services. The Company
offers transportation networks, customized delivery systems,
manages distribution operations and business solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by EGAN, JON M, ESQ.



AUSTRALIA: Court Has Yet Rule on Cattle Export Ban Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shan Goodwin, writing for Queensland Country Life, reports that the
waiting game continues for a ruling in the class action claim
against the Commonwealth Government over the infamous 2011
Indonesian live cattle export ban.

It has been a year now since evidence of detriment in the second
phase of the case was wrapped up in the Federal Court.

The applicants see the lengthy period Justice Steven Rares is
taking on the case as a positive sign, indicative of the complexity
of the issues and the vast volumes of evidence involved.

The Northern Territory's Brett Cattle Company are lead litigants in
the legal action that is seeking to prove misfeasance in former
Labor Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig's decision to suspend the
live cattle trade to Indonesia for up to six months in mid-2011.

The minister's decision came in response to unprecedented public
backlash ignited by dramatic television footage of animal cruelty
filmed by animal activists in Indonesia abattoirs.

The core of the applicants' argument is that the government did not
need to ban the trade and therefore that decision was in fact
illegal.

The applicants are seeking $600 million in compensation, which was
the estimate of the losses incurred by the 300 entities involved.

Facilitator of the class action, former Northern Territory
Cattlemen's Association chief executive officer Tracey Hayes said
the outcome would be a landmark ruling, one way or the other.

Trade 'welded onto beef supply chain'

Meanwhile, with the latest industry live export figures showing
steady gains in volumes since August, both producers and industry
leaders appear to be working harder on highlighting the value of
the trade.

Meat & Livestock Australia's new managing director Jason Strong has
led the charge.

He said what ignited his focus on the sector was reading MLA's risk
register and discovering 'live-ex was number one and two.'

"That's big exposure for something we don't have a fantastic
engagement with," he said.

"We have more value being generated in live exports than we do in
beef to Korea yet our relationship on a supply chain basis with
live-ex has been nothing short of dysfunctional."

The trade was welded onto the beef supply chain, not 'something we
can choose to be interested or not be interested in', Mr Strong
said.

"As an industry, it's an integral part of what we do," he said.

"From a service organisation point of view, it is not our
prerogative to have a position on whether we should or should not
do something like live-ex.

"It's our duty to support levy payers, many of whom in the north
supply the live-ex trade."

Mr Strong was speaking at MLA's annual general meeting late in
November in Tamworth, following questions from the floor on
live-ex.

He said there were certainly risks and challenges in how Australia
delivered live animals into markets, citing heat restrictions into
the Middle East in the northern summer has having a big impact on
sheep production in WA in the past year.

Dealing with these types of challenges would be the reality if
Australia was going to have a long-term sustainable live-ex
industry, he argued.

"We need better and more objective information that understands the
demands and risks in markets so we can respond and so that we don't
put ourselves at risk, particularly on animal welfare grounds," Mr
Strong said.

"We are progressively building trust with the community. We are in
a far better position today than we were this time last year but we
can erode that very quickly.

"So while firstly we have to appreciate the contribution live-ex
makes, collectively we have to hold each other to account." [GN]


BAXTER INT'L: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Jan. 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming January 24, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Baxter International, Inc.
(NYSE: BAX ) investors who purchased common stock between February
21, 2019 and October 23, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

On October 24, 2019, the Company disclosed certain misstatements in
Baxter's non-operating income for fiscal years 2014 through 2018
related to net foreign exchange gains. Baxter also disclosed that
it began an investigation regarding "certain intra-company
transactions undertaken for the purpose of generating foreign
exchange gains or losses," which had used a foreign exchange rate
convention that was "not in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and enabled intra-company transactions to be
undertaken after the related exchange rates were already known."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.87, or roughly 10%,
to close at $79.08 per share on October 24, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that certain intra-Company transactions, undertaken
for the purpose of generating foreign exchange gains and losses,
used foreign exchange rate conventions that were not in accordance
with GAAP and enabled intra-Company transactions to be undertaken
after the related exchange rates were already known; (2) that the
Company lacked effective internal control over financial reporting;
(3) that as a result, the Company's financial statements were
misstated and would likely require correction or amendment; (4)
that due to the Company's internal investigation, Baxter would not
be able to file its quarterly report for the period ending
September 30, 2019, with the SEC on Form 10-Q in a timely manner;
and (5) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements
about the Company's business and operations lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased Baxter common stock during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than January 24, 2020 to request
appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
                 lportnoy@glancylaw.com
[GN]



BAXTER INT'L: Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set for Jan. 24
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 1
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Baxter International Inc. (NYSE:
BAX) between February 21, 2019 and October 23, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Baxter
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Baxter class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1702.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) certain intra-Company transactions, undertaken for the
purpose of generating foreign exchange gains and losses, used
foreign exchange rate conventions that were not in accordance with
GAAP and enabled intra-Company transactions to be undertaken after
the related exchange rates were already known; (2) Baxter lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting; (3) as a
result, Baxter's financial statements were misstated and would
likely require correction or amendment; (4) due to Baxter's
internal investigation, the Company would not be able to file its
quarterly report for the period ending September 30, 2019, with the
SEC on Form 10-Q in a timely manner; and (5) as a result, Baxter's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
24, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1702.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN]


C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Katz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C.Tech Collections,
Inc. The case is styled as Tarynn H. Katz, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. C.Tech
Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07277 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 30, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

C.Tech Collections, Inc. is a collection agency focusing on
delinquent receivables, while providing professional, courteous
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


CANADA: Manitoba First Nation Launches Water Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Annable, writing for CBC News, reports that a legal
challenge filed in Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench could cost the
federal government billions, if it is proven the government has
violated the Charter rights of a large class of First Nations
people for decades by failing to provide them with safe drinking
water.

A proposed class-action lawsuit was filed on Nov. 20 by Tataskweyak
Cree Nation Chief Doreen Spence on her own behalf and on behalf of
her northern Manitoba First Nation. The suit alleges that the First
Nation has spent decades without access to clean drinking water and
seeks damages.

Tataskweyak has been under an official long-term boil water
advisory since 2017.

The lawsuit alleges that the federal government received consistent
advice for decades that it was depriving First Nations of adequate
access to clean drinking water, but did not act.  

"Although Canada was advised of the devastating human consequences
of these failures, its response to this human catastrophe was --
and continues to be -- a toxic mixture of inertia and
incompetence," the lawsuit says.

"It conducted its affairs with wanton and callous disregard for
[the] interests, safety and well-being" of people living under the
advisories, the suit says.

If it is certified as a class action, the suit will aim to bring
together a class made up of any member of a band whose land was
subject to a water advisory that lasted at least one year, at any
point from Nov. 8, 1995, until the present.

'A long-standing problem'

Michael Rosenberg, a partner at McCarthy Tetrault and the lead
lawyer in the suit, says it's not clear yet how many individuals
would make up the class.

Beyond the 57 reserves currently under long-term water advisories,
there are many examples of communities, such as Pauingassi or
Hollow Water First Nation, that were under advisories for years
before they were lifted.

"It would be a significant number. This is a long-standing
problem," Rosenberg said.

Tataskweyak Cree Nation, about 700 kilometres north of Winnipeg, is
one of two First Nations in Manitoba currently under long-term boil
water advisories, along with Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation in
northwestern Manitoba.

Tataskweyak "was a community that wanted to take a leadership
role," as the lead plaintiff in the suit, Rosenberg said.

"In terms of the geography of this crisis, there has been a
significant instance of long-term drinking water advisories in
Manitoba."

A spokesperson for Indigenous Services Canada said the federal
government is aware of the suit and is seeking legal advice.

The spokesperson also noted the government has committed more than
$2 billion toward on-reserve water and wastewater infrastructure
since 2016.

Promise to have advisories lifted by 2021

The federal Liberals ran on a campaign promise in 2015 to have all
boil-water advisories lifted by March 2021.

According to the federal government's water advisory tracker,
Tataskweyak is scheduled to be one of the last First Nations to
have its advisory lifted, with a completion date slated for March
2021.

The lawsuit alleges Tataskweyak Cree Nation has been denied
adequate access to drinking water since the early 1950s, as
upstream development and agricultural use degraded the water
quality in Split Lake -- the source of the First Nation's drinking
water.

That drinking water source is so contaminated it is no longer safe
to swim in Split Lake, and warning signs now adorn the shores of
the 46-kilometre long lake, the lawsuit says.

"Exposure to the water has caused members of Tataskweyak Cree
Nation to contract illness of increasing severity with increasing
frequency," the suit says.

"Those who are exposed to the lake water, especially children,
often develop rashes or sores and require medical care."

Throughout the years, sewage from the city of Thompson and other
upstream communities has entered into Split Lake. This has caused
elevated E. coli levels in the water, the suit says, and blue-green
algae contamination has devastated the fishing industry.

"Fishermen regularly catch fish covered with grotesque lesions," it
says.

An attempt to build an adequate water treatment plant for
Tataskweyak failed, because the plant was not built with enough
capacity, according to the court document.

More than $2B in damages

In addition to seeing the federal government held liable for the
damages caused by the unsafe drinking water, the suit also seeks to
force the government to immediately construct, or approve and fund
the construction of, appropriate water systems for the class
members.

The feds would also be on the hook for $1 billion in damages for
the breaches of the Charter rights, $1 billion for negligence of
its fiduciary duty and $100 million in punitive damages.

Rosenberg says the next step will be bringing a motion before the
court to get the class action certified.

"My hope is that Canada will redouble its efforts in the interim to
provide measures that address the ongoing suffering of class
members -- particularly those who are unable to access clean
drinking water," he said. [GN]


CANOPY GROWTH: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Jan. 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Canopy Growth Corporation (CGC)
Class Period: 6/21/2019 - 11/13/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 20, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-cgc

Grubhub Inc. (GRUB)
Class Period: 7/30/2019 - 10/28/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 21, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-grub           

Baxter International Inc. (BAX)
Class Period: 2/21/2019 - 10/23/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-baxter-international-inc-securities-litigation-3

Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU)
Class Period: 2/15/2019 - 8/2/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 27, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-pru    

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                      About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]



CAPITAL CONCRETE: Euceda Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
RENE EUCEDA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by CAPITAL CONCRETE NY INC.,
CAPITAL CONCRETE NY2 INC., CAPITAL CONCRETE USA INC., SWP SERVICES
CORP., MOSES KAHAN aka MOSHE KAHAN and any other entities
affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by CAPITAL CONCRETE NY
INC., CAPITAL CONCRETE NY2 INC., CAPITAL CONCRETE USA INC., SWP
SERVICES CORP. and MOSES KAHAN aka MOSHE KAHAN, Plaintiffs v.
CAPITAL CONCRETE NY INC., CAPITAL CONCRETE NY2 INC., CAPITAL
CONCRETE USA INC., SWP SERVICES CORP., MOSES KAHAN aka MOSHE KAHAN
and any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled
by CAPITAL CONCRETE NY INC., CAPITAL CONCRETE NY2 INC., CAPITAL
CONCRETE USA INC., SWP SERVICES CORP. and MOSES KAHAN aka MOSHE
KAHAN individually, Defendants, Case No. 161796/2019 (N.Y. Sup.,
Dec. 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in 2016 and continuing
through the present, the Defendants have engaged in a policy and
practice of requiring their employees to regularly work in excess
of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime compensation as
required by applicable state law. Under the direction of Moses
Kahan, the Defendants instituted the practice of depriving their
employees of minimum wages and overtime compensation as required by
state law, the lawsuit added.

The Plaintiff formerly worked for their Defendants in their
construction business finishing floors, and laying foundations for
buildings on several privately financed projects throughout the New
York City metropolitan area, from May 2016 through November 2019.

Capital concrete offers line of optimized mixes designed for every
kind of project.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leonor H. Coyle, Esq.
          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lcoyle@vandallp.com


CBL: Faces Second Shareholder Class Action in New Zealand
---------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand reports that another application for a class
action against the failed insurer CBL has been filed at the High
Court in Auckland.

The action, backed by Australian litigation funder IMF Bentham and
law firm Glaister Ennor, followed a class action against CBL by the
Auckland-based LPF Group, filed in November.

The latest class action, which would seek compensation for
shareholders, alleged CBL breached its obligations to keep
investors informed about the state of its French insurance
business.

CBL was worth almost $750 million on the New Zealand stock exchange
when it collapsed in February last year, hitting investors across
the world.

"We have continued to receive strong interest in the IMF funded
action from both retail and institutional investors in New Zealand
and abroad, and we have signed up a significant amount of
shareholders who together purchased tens of millions of shares in
CBL and whose investment has been lost due to the company's alleged
misconduct," IMF Bentham investment manager Ewen McNee said.

Litigation funders back cases on a no win, no fees basis, meaning
they collected a slice of any damages awarded or had to pay all of
the costs if they lost.

A former director of CBL, Peter Harris, was not immediately
available for comment, but in his response to the other class
action filing in November, he said it was a 'cheap shot' by LPF
Group to get ahead of its competitor, IMF.

He said the allegations by LPF accusing him of misleading
shareholders, breaching disclosure obligations and of insider
trading, were 'damaging and unsubstantiated'.

"The court is the proper forum to decide whether these allegations
are true or not, or had anything to do with any loss, not through
the media before the court case is even heard," Mr Harris told RNZ
Business in November.

"The IPO was an incredibly robust process, with many professional
firms and several government regulators involved."

CBL was still under investigation by the Financial Markets
Authority and the Serious Fraud Office.

An external review of the Reserve Bank's handling of the downfall
of CBL Insurance found that it acted properly in fighting through
the courts for its liquidation, however was at times too lenient
and did not act on early concerns. [GN]


COACH SERVICES: Mendez Files ADA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coach Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Himelda Mendez and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Coach Services, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11856 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Coach Services, Inc. is a privately held company in New York, NY
and categorized under Women's Handbags and Purses
Manufacturers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


COMPASS GROUP: Jilek Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as James Jilek, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Compass Group USA, Inc. a
Delaware Corporation, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-10139 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on Dec. 26, 2019, and assigned Case
No. 4:19-cv-03335-PLC.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Compass Group USA, Inc. retails prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption. The Company offers catering, dining, and
support services for foodservice events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          Mike M Arias, Esq.
          Arias Sanguinetti Wang and Torrijos LLP
          6701 Center Drive West 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Phone: (310) 844-9696
          Fax: (310) 861-0168
          Email: mike@aswtlawyers.com
                 alfredo@aswtlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christina N Goodrich, Esq.
          K&L Gates LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 552-5000
          Fax: (310) 552-5001
          Email: christina.goodrich@klgates.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Wylie, II, Esq.
          K AND L GATES LLP
          70 W. Madison St., Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 372-1121
          Email: joseph.wylie@klgates.com


DOLAR SHOP: Servers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime, Slashed Tips
----------------------------------------------------------
Yunjie Deng, Jianwei Zhao, Yanxue Liang, Keqing Song, Feng Yay Yeng
(a/k/a Fengyan Yang), on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Dolar Shop Restaurant Group
LLC, Dolar Shop USA, LLC, Tzu Yen Cheung, Yu Zhang, Lili Shen, John
Doe 1-5 and Company ABC 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-21775, (D.
N.J., December 20, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
overtime compensation and illegally withheld wages already earned
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Laws.

Defendants operate as "The Dolar Shop Hot Pot" restaurant chain in
New York where Plaintiffs worked as servers. They claim to have
worked in excess of 12 hours per day, 7 days per week without being
paid overtime. They also claim to work through their breaks and had
their tips deducted illegally. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Heng Wang, Esq.
      WANG, GAO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      36 Bridge Street
      Metuchen, NJ 08840
      Tel: (732) 767-3020
      Fax: (732) 343-6880


DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar Seeks OT Wages for Chauffeur Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Salazar and Wayne Carpenter, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated individuals v. Driver Provider Phoenix,
LLC; Driver Provider Management, LLC; Driver Provider Leasing, LLC;
Innovative Transportation Solutions of Sedona, LLC; Innovative
Transportation Solutions of Tucson, LLC; Innovative Transportation
Solutions, Inc. (Arizona); Innovative Transportation Solutions,
Inc. (Utah); Innovative Transportation Solutions, LLC (Wyoming);
Jason Kaplan; Kendra Kaplan; Barry Gross and Jane Doe Gross,
husband and wife; and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:19-cv-05760-SMB (D.
Ariz., Dec. 6, 2019), seeks to redress the Defendants' violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona wage statutes for
persons, who work or have worked for Defendants as chauffeur
drivers.

To accomplish their business purpose, the Defendants employ
"chauffeur" drivers who, among other things, drive the Defendants'
vehicles, pick up the Defendants' customers at various locations,
and drop off the customers at various locations.

The Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members are current and former
employees of the Defendants, who work or worked as chauffeur
drivers.

According to the complaint, for at least three years prior to the
filing of this complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and Class Members required
overtime wages in violation of the FLSA.

The Defendants are privately owned companies operating in Arizona,
Utah, and Wyoming as "The Driver Provider" and its owners and
officers, Jason Kaplan, Kendra Kaplan, and Barry Gross. The Driver
Provider is owned and operated by related individuals for a common
business purpose: providing chauffeured transportation services to
Defendants' customers. The Defendants operate in six main markets:
Phoenix, Arizona; Sedona, Arizona; Tucson, Arizona; Salt Lake City,
Utah; Park City, Utah; and Jackson, Wyoming.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
          Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
          Michael M. Licata, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
          4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
          E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
                  jkroll@martinbonnett.com
                  mlicata@martinbonnett.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Wright Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Karlata Wright, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01249 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 26, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full-service collection agency
based in South Carolina. Dynamic Recovery Solutions is experienced
in collecting late-stage debt for small, medium, and high-volume
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          Stein Saks, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (NYSE:FCAU) for violations of Sec. 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
26, 2016 and November 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 31, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Fiat engaged in a bribery scheme designed
to gain favorable terms from labor unions for its collective
bargaining agreements. Executives at the top levels of management
for the Company were aware of the schemes. Based on the facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Fiat, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.,
         The Schall Law Firm
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Office: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         Email: info@schallfirm.com, brian@schallfirm.com
[GN]



FIELDWORK INC: Advanced Derma TCPA Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY, On behalf
of itself and all those similarly situated v. FIELDWORK, INC., Case
No. 5:19-cv-01828 (Filed Aug. 12, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Dec. 6, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-08012 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.

The Plaintiff brings the nationwide class action complaint against
Fieldwork, Inc. for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, in sending unsolicited facsimiles to people and businesses,
who have not given their consent.

Advanced Dermatology specializes in complete skin, hair and nail
care.

Fieldwork, Inc. provides marketing research services. The company
provides online, ethnographic, usability, and convention research,
as well as project management and recruiting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Berler, Esq.
          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER
          767 East 185 Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Telephone: (216) 502-1055
          Facsimile: (216) 566-9400
          E-mail: mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory D. Brunton, Esq.
          Joseph Kendall Merical, Esq.
          GORDON & REES-COLUMBUS
          41 South High Street, Ste. 2495
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 340-5558
          Facsimile: (614) 360-2130
          E-mail: gbrunton@grsm.com
                  jmerical@grsm.com


FITBIT INC: Thompson Seeks to Enjoin Proposed Sale to Google
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FITBIT, INC., JAMES PARK, ERIC N. FRIEDMAN, LAURA
ALBER, MATTHEW BROMBERG, GLENDA FLANAGAN, BRADLEY M. FLUEGEL,
STEVEN MURRAY, and CHRISTOPHER PAISLEY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02236-UNA
(D. Del., Dec. 6, 2019), seeks to preliminarily and permanently
enjoin the Defendants from consummating or closing a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Fitbit will be acquired by Google
LLC and Magnoliophyta Inc.

In the event the Defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction,
the Plaintiff seeks an order rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages.

On November 1, 2019, Fitbit's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Google. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Fitbit's stockholders will
receive $7.35 in cash for each share of Fitbit common stock they
own.

On November 25, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading, the Plaintiff asserts.

According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding the Company's financial projections, and the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, Qatalyst Partners LLP.

The Plaintiff, who owns Fitbit common stock, alleges that the
Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. As a
direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, the
Plaintiff says he and the Class are threatened with irreparable
harm.

Fitbit designs products and experiences that track and provide
motivation for everyday health and fitness. The Company's line of
products includes Fitbit Charge 3 (TM), Fitbit Inspire HR (TM),
Fitbit Inspire (TM), and Fitbit Ace 2 (TM) activity trackers, as
well as the Fitbit Ionic (TM) and Fitbit Versa (TM) family of
smartwatches, Fitbit Flyer (TM) wireless headphones, and Fitbit
Aria family of smart scales. The Individual Defendants are
Directors of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                 bdl@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Sayce Securities Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher L. Sayce, individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., MICHAEL
DECESARE, and CHRISTOPHER HARMS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00076 (N.D. Cal.,
Jan. 2, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating securities
laws.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities, other than the Defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Forescout securities between February 7, 2019,
and October 9, 2019, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against
the Company and certain of its top officials.

Forescout's profitability depends on, inter alia, the number of
deals and licenses the Company can secure within a given fiscal
period, as well as the relative size and geographic location of
those deals.  The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies.

Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Forescout was experiencing significant volatility with respect to
large deals and issues related to the timing and execution of deals
in the Company's pipeline, especially in Europe, the Middle East,
and Africa ("EMEA"); (ii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to
have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results;
and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 10, 2019, during pre-market hours, Forescout issued a
press release announcing preliminary third quarter 2019 ("3Q19")
financial results. That press release lowered 3Q19 revenue guidance
to $90.6 million to $91.6 million, compared to prior revenue
guidance of $98.8 million to $101.8 million, and market consensus
of $100.52 million. In explaining these results, the Defendants
cited "extended approval cycles which pushed several deals out of
the third quarter," which "was most pronounced in EMEA."

On this news, Forescout's stock price fell $14.63 per share, or
37.32%, to close at $24.57 per share on October 10, 2019.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired Forescout securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

Forescout provides network security products in the Americas,
Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and Japan,
selling its products and services through distributors and
resellers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 405-7190
          Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com


GATE GOURMET: Stokes Suit Over BIPA Violation Moved to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled Lashaune Stokes, Anthony Ray, and Anthony Doughty,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GATE GOURMET, INC., Case No. 2019-CH-13755, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 2, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00016 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint seeks relief under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act, including damages of $1,000 to $5,000 for each of the
Defendant's negligent and/or reckless violations of BIPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
          Andrew R. Cockroft, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-460-5000
          Facsimile: 312-460-7000
          Email: tahlering@seyfarth.com
                 acockroft@seyfarth.com


GENESCO INC: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genesco Inc. The case
is styled as Himelda Mendez and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Genesco Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-11855 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Genesco Inc. is an American publicly owned specialty retailer of
branded footwear and accessories and is a wholesaler of branded and
licensed footwear based in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


GRUBHUB INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Jan. 21 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Canopy Growth Corporation (CGC)
Class Period: 6/21/2019 - 11/13/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 20, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-cgc

Grubhub Inc. (GRUB)
Class Period: 7/30/2019 - 10/28/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 21, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-grub           

Baxter International Inc. (BAX)
Class Period: 2/21/2019 - 10/23/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-baxter-international-inc-securities-litigation-3

Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU)
Class Period: 2/15/2019 - 8/2/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 27, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-pru    

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                      About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]



HAWTHORNE LAB INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawthorne Lab Inc.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hawthorne Lab
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11858 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Hawthorne Lab Inc. is a privately held company in New York, NY and
is a Single Location business, categorized under Perfumes and
Colognes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          Lipsky Lowe LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


HEXO CORP: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of Jan. 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of HEXO Corp. (NYSE:HEXO) common stock
between January 25, 2019 and November 15, 2019 (the "Class
Period"). The case is captioned Perez v. HEXO Corp., No.
19-cv-10965, and is assigned to Judge Naomi R. Buchwald. The HEXO
securities class action lawsuit charges HEXO and certain of its
current and former officers with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased HEXO common stock during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the HEXO securities class
action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the HEXO securities class action lawsuit. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
HEXO securities class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the HEXO securities class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the HEXO securities class
action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding
the HEXO securities class action lawsuit, please visit our website
by clicking here or contact Brian Cochran at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the HEXO securities class action lawsuit must be filed
with the court no later than January 27, 2020.

HEXO is a licensed producer and distributor of branded cannabis
products. The HEXO securities class action lawsuit alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that: (1)
HEXO's reported inventory was misstated, as it was failing to write
down or write off obsolete product that no longer had value; (2)
HEXO was engaging in channel-stuffing to inflate its revenue
figures and meet or exceed revenue guidance provided to investors;
(3) HEXO was cultivating cannabis at its facility in Niagara,
Ontario that was not appropriately licensed by Health Canada; and
(4) that, based on the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about HEXO's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of this
information being withheld from the market, HEXO common stock
traded at artificially inflated prices of more than $8.00 per share
during the Class Period.

On October 4, 2019, HEXO announced the abrupt and immediate
resignation of its then Chief Financial Officer, Michael Monahan.
On this news, HEXO's stock price fell more than 6%. Then, on
October 10, 2019, defendants announced that they now expected
HEXO's net revenue for the fourth quarter of 2019 to be
approximately CAD$14.5 million to $16.5 million, well below
previous guidance that called for CAD$24.8 million. Further,
defendants announced that HEXO had elected to withdraw its fiscal
year 2020 financial outlook, which had included anticipated
net-revenue of approximately CAD$400 million for the fiscal year.
HEXO's Chief Executive Officer, defendant Sébastien St. Louis,
attributed the lower expected revenue to "lower than expected
product sell through," "[s]lower than expected store rollouts, a
delay in government approval for cannabis derivative products and
early signs of pricing pressure[,] . . . [a] delay in retail store
openings [and] regulatory uncertainty." On this news, HEXO's stock
price declined more than 22%.

On October 24, 2019, HEXO announced 200 layoffs, which resulted in
the subsequent shutting down of several facilities HEXO operated
near Niagara Falls, Ontario. HEXO further postponed its quarterly
earnings report, having just inked a CAD$70 million deal with an
investor group that included defendant St. Louis and three board
members. That same day, CIBC World Markets Corp. published a
scathing analyst report regarding HEXO and downgraded HEXO to
Underperformer, with a new lowered $3 price target. On this news,
HEXO's stock price fell more than 6%. Then, on October 29, 2019,
HEXO reported its financial results for the fourth quarter and 2019
fiscal year, announcing that HEXO had taken an impairment on
CAD$16.9 million of inventory purchased in the prior period due to
declining market prices. HEXO further confirmed that "[c]ultivation
has been suspended at the Niagara facility." On this news, HEXO's
stock price fell an additional 3%.

Finally, on November 15, 2019, HEXO issued a press release entitled
"HEXO Corp provides additional transparency on licensing," in which
it admitted that it grew marijuana in an unlicensed facility in
Niagara, Ontario. On this news, HEXO's stock price dropped more
than 5%.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.

https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw
https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw
https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw

Contact:

         Brian Cochran, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel: 800-449-4900
         Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
[GN]




I.C. SYSTEM: Silver Files FCRA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The
case is styled as Yitzchok Silver, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. I.C. System, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07238 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

IC System offers accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com



J. C. PENNEY: Bina Sues Over Failure to Provide Suitable Seats
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Bina, an individual, on behalf of the State of California, as
a private attorney general v. J. C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC.; and
DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV00073 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 2, 2020), is brought against the Defendants
under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act relating to
their failure to provide suitable seats.

The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and the aggrieved
employees with suitable seats for employees performing work as
cashiers even though the nature of work reasonably permitted the
use of seats, says the complaint. Thus, the Plaintiff is an
aggrieved employee within the meaning of PAGA and the Defendants
have violated Labor Code Sections 1198 and 1199 with respect to the
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee in California and performed cashier work for the
Defendant.

J. C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC. is a Delaware Corporation operating
in California including in the County of Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          Ari J. Stiller, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: (818) 990-8300
          Fax: (818) 990-2903
          Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                 liane@kingsleykingsley.com
                 ari@kingsleykingsley.com


JAI BALAJI: Herrera Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Garcia Herrera, on behalf of herself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Jai Balaji
Inc., S.A. Gandhi and Vikram Gandhi, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-07164, (E.D. N.Y., December 20, 2019), seeks unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages and any other statutory penalties as
recoverable, compensatory damages sustained as a result of
Defendants' retaliation, including back pay, front pay, punitive
damages, redress for failure to provide wage statements, costs and
disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Defendants operate Super 8 by Wyndham Long Island City LGA Hotel, a
Queens-based motel where Herrera worked as a housekeeper from March
1, 2001 to May 20, 2019. She regularly works more than forty hours
in a workweek, but was not paid the statutorily-required overtime
rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for any
hours that she has worked each week in excess of forty and was
denied accurate wage statements on each payday, asserts the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel. (516) 248-5550
      Fax. (516) 248-6027
      Email: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
             mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Gotay Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Gotay, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jefferson
Capital Systems, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-02427-WWB-LRH
(M.D. Fla., Dec. 26, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC provides financial services. The
Company offers payment rewards, bankruptcy claims, and debt
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
          Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com


JONES DAY: Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs Want Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Rubino, writing for Above the Law, reports that plaintiffs
in the gender discrimination case filed against big law firm Jones
Day have filed a motion in federal court to conditionally certify
the case as a collective action under the Equal Pay Act. The
purported class-action gender discrimination lawsuit alleges a
"fraternity culture" at the firm and unequal pay behind the firm's
notorious "black box" compensation system.

There are currently six named plaintiffs in the case (there had
been seven, but one anonymous plaintiff dropped out rather than
reveal her name). The plaintiffs are spread throughout the
country--Nilab Rahyar Tolton, Andrea Mazingo, Meredith Williams,
and Jaclyn Stahl worked in California offices of the firm, while
Saira Draper was an associate in Atlanta, and Katrina Henderson was
in the firm's New York office--and allege the same black box
compensation systems kept their pay below that of men working at
the firm:

"Plaintiffs worked in multiple Jones Day offices and practice
groups, and each has been subjected to a common compensation
practice that results in women earning less than men for
substantially equal work," they said in the filing. "All are
challenging the same compensation policy, under which every
associate's compensation is determined in a 'black box,' with final
decisions made by the Firm's Managing Partner, Stephen J. Brogan."

If the collective action is certified, female associates who have
worked at Jones Day since April 3, 2016, would be able to opt into
the litigation.

In their response to the First Amended Complaint, Jones Day denied
the plaintiffs' allegations, going after the notion the plaintiffs
should be paid on the market scale set by Cravath, and highlighting
the professional failings of the plaintiffs.[GN]



KEALOHA SUSHI: Xu Files FLSA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kealoha Sushi Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Yong Xu, on his own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kealoha Sushi
Inc. doing business as: Kealoha Sushi & Poke Bowl, Song Chen also
known as: Jacky Chen, John 01 Doe, John 02 Doe, Darwin Doe, Aloha
Sushi Inc. doing business as: Aloha Sushi & Poke Bowl, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11885 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kealoha Sushi Inc. is a restaurant located at 330 E 53rd Street,
New York, NY, 10022-5220, offering Soup, Dinner, Salads, Sushi, and
more Asian Cuisines.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


LAWINGER CONSULTING: Patton Files Suit in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lawinger Consulting,
Inc. The case is styled as Alden Patton, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Lawinger Consulting,
Inc., and Lawrence Lawinger, Defendants, Case No. 27-CV-19-21407
(Minn. 4th Judicial District, Hennepin Cty., Dec. 30, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Employment".

Lawinger Consulting, Inc. (LCI) is an IT company that offers
technical staffing and software development services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          JOSHUA REACE WILLIAMS, ESQ.
          Phone: 612-486-5540

The Defendants are represented by:

          JOEL PATRICK SCHROEDER, ESQ.
          Phone: 612-843-5814


LJM PRESERVATION: Investors Settle Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Investors in LJM Preservation and Growth Fund will get pennies on
the dollar from the Class Action.  Proof of Claim in the Class
[was] due by Dec. 11, 2019.

But if this investment was the recommendation of a broker, or was
the decision of an Investment Advisor, there may be additional
sources for recovering investor losses.

Deutsch & Lipner is a New York law firm representing investors
nationwide. In 2019, Deutsch & Lipner won an American Arbitration
Association award for an investor against an Investment Advisor who
bought LJM. The investor won full compensation, attorneys' fees and
costs.

The arbitrator found the advisor liable for breach of contract,
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and violations of state
securities laws.

The experienced attorneys at Deutsch & Lipner showed that the Fund
was a ticking time bomb--demonstrably risky. The Fund had a history
of skewed returns, and, while opaque to ordinary investors,
investment professionals who conducted real due diligence either
did not invest, or pulled clients out. A 2018 change in the LJM
Prospectus and then in the size of the Fund foreshadowed the coming
crash.

The arbitrator wrote: "Lack of correlation between LJM's
performance and that of the stock market did not mean that the
investment was less risky than equities or bonds . . . LJM was
subject to a 'tail risk'; an outlier risk of a catastrophic event,
exhibited by LJM Fund's negative skew."

Investors who bought the LJM Preservation and Growth Fund through a
broker or advisor should contact Deutsch & Lipner for a
confidential consultation. Deutsch & Lipner can be reached at
516-294-8899 or at DeutschLipner.com. [GN]




LYFT: Drivers File Minimum Wage, OT Class Action in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Nieto-Munoz, writing for NJ.com, reports that on the heels
of legislation that could upend the growing 'gig economy' and
affect ridesharing companies, a class action lawsuit has been filed
in New Jersey alleging that Lyft has not properly compensated its
workers and continuously violates how it classifies its drivers.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, claims
the San-Francisco-based ridesharing company failed to pay minimum
wage, did not pay overtime and did not reimburse business
expenses.

Lyft also violated labor laws by intentionally misclassifying its
workers to skirt around paying workers minimum wage and overtime,
the complaint filed Nov. 21 reads.

The classification of workers has become a contentious and hot
topic for the state, with Gov. Phil Murphy convening a task force
to examine , which determined that more than $462 million in wages
were underreported. In recent weeks, lawmakers have looked to
readdress the labor laws and a report revealed Uber owed the state
millions of dollars for violating those laws.

Renier Gonzalez, the Jersey City resident named in the lawsuit, has
worked for Lyft since October 2017 and often drives between New
Jersey and New York City, airports and train stations. He completed
92 trips -- roughly 763 miles -- and was paid $1,068.80 for his
work in 2017, according to the suit.

But he wasn't reimbursed for other out-of-pocket expenses,
including some tolls, gas, insurance and vehicle maintenance, which
totaled to more than $400, leaving him with a net pay of $660.63,
which does not equate to minimum wage, the suit alleges.

In 2018, Gonzalez drove 334.23 miles for Lyft, and was paid
$879.98, but was similarly not paid for the extra expenses of
$178.81, leaving him with $701.17, the complaint continues.

By regularly being under-reimbursed for driving expenses, the
complaint states, the majority of Lyft drivers "are effectively
paid well below the minimum wage."

It also notes that the some of the 3,000 Lyft drivers in New Jersey
are regularly driving across state lines, and are subsequently
considered as engaging in interstate commerce -- deeming the
arbitration clause in the Lyft Driver Agreement unenforceable.

"One way Lyft has been able to continue this practice is by
preventing drivers from taking collective action by forcing them
into individual arbitrations, which results in Lyft being able to
continue its practices," said Montclair lawyer Roosevelt N.
Nesmith, who filed the suit on Gonzalez's behalf.

And Lyft has tried to shield itself from its minimum wage
violations by intentionally misclassifying its drivers as
independent contractors rather than employees, he said. The
complaint details how the company can prevent drivers from
accepting rides outside their hours, performance assessment and
controls pay rate for each ride.

Lyft did not comment directly on the lawsuit. A spokesman noted
about 94% of Lyft drivers in the state drive less than 20 hours a
week to use driving as supplemental income.

"These are parents who have busy schedules, retirees, students, or
individuals who have another full-time job. Flexible schedules are
extremely important to them, allowing them to set their own hours
while earning additional income, and many turn to driving because a
traditional job simply doesn't fit their needs. An employment model
would put their flexibility and financial security, as well as the
affordability and accessibility our riders depend on, into
jeopardy," the spokesman said.

Nesmith argued Lyft's business model boosts its profits by failing
to pay legally required wages to their drivers.

"Lyft's practice harms its drivers, competing business that play by
the rules and, as states such as New Jersey have realized, cheat
states out of tax revenue," he said. "Mr Gonzalez's lawsuit will
overcome the arbitration barrier and hold Lyft accountable to the
drivers on whose backs it has built its businesses."

It's far from the only company that has come under fire for worker
classification. Uber reportedly owes New Jersey $650 million for
violating labor laws relating to misclassifying workers to get
around providing benefits and minimum wage.

There's several bills being heard in the legislature that would
address the growing 'gig economy' which has skyrocketed by 40
percent, according to the task force.

Democrats who back the bills say businesses are exploiting workers
in the 'gig economy' by calling them contractors, which holds them
back from receiving benefits. Critics say it could cost jobs with
over the top regulations.

A six-package bill approved by the Assembly Labor Committee earlier
in December focused on the classification of workers, ranging from
requiring employers to post notice for employee classification
A5843, to paying penalties for misclassification, A5839, to
creating a list for employers found in violation, A5841.

State Senate President Stephen Sweeney also introduced a bill,
S4204, concerning the employment status of residents regarding wage
and unemployment laws, which advanced through the Senate Labor
Committee.

New Jersey is one of several states waging a war with ride-sharing
companies.

California recently passed a law requiring Uber and Lyft to
classify drivers as employees rather than independent contractors.
New York drivers also recently filed suit against Uber, alleging
they are owed millions in unpaid wages.

Lyft and Uber sued New York City in 2018 for capping how many
ride-hailing cars can be on the street. And the app-based
companies, along with DoorDash, pledged to spend $90 million to
counteract California's Assembly Bill 5. [GN]


MICHELANGLEO PIZZERIA: Mejia Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Cristino Mejia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MICHELANGLEO PIZZERIA AND RESTAURANT OF EASTPORT, INC.,
and FRANCESCO DiSTEFANO, Individually, Case No. 2:20-cv-00004
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2020), seeks to recover damages as a result of
the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.

The Defendants failed to properly pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees for their hours worked in excess of 40
hours per work week at the statutorily required rate of pay, in
direct violation of the FLSA and applicable state laws of the State
of New York, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt kitchen
worker, performing food preparation services at the Defendants'
restaurant.

The Defendants are in the restaurant business and a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          Email: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


MOVE INC: Maness Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Move, Inc. The case
is styled as Moshe Maness, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Move, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07287 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Move, Inc. is a real estate listing company based in Santa Clara,
California. The company operates the Move Network of real estate
websites, the largest of which is Realtor.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Michael Magliery, Esq.
          Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 603-6444
          Fax: (212) 379-5212
          Email: JohnMagliery@dwt.com


NET 1 UEPS: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. (UEPS) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Net
1 between September 12, 2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Net 1 investors under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company lacked effective internal control over
financial reporting; (2) the Company had misclassified its
investment in Cell C Proprietary Limited; (3) the Company's
financial statements for the fiscal year 2018 were overstating its
income; and (4) as a result, UEPS's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the February 3, 2020
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
[GN]



NEXTDOOR.COM INC: Vaccaro Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID VACCARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTDOOR.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-10363 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 6, 2019), alleges that the Defendant
promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants began to use the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of sending the
Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers, via text
messages, including a text message sent to and received by the
Plaintiff on November 18, 2019. These text messages placed to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone were placed via an "automatic
telephone dialing system."

The Plaintiff and the members of the Class have all suffered
irreparable harm as a result of the Defendants' unlawful and
wrongful conduct, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit seeks only damages
and injunctive relief for recovery of economic injury on behalf of
the Class, and it expressly is not intended to request any recovery
for personal injury and related claims.

Nextdoor is a social networking service for neighborhoods. Based in
San Francisco, California, the company was founded in 2008 and
launched in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 323-306-4234
          Facsimile: 866-633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


NPM STAFFING: Stephenson Labor Suit Removed to to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NPM Staffing, LLC, removed the case captioned JIM STEPHENSON, an
individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. NPM STAFFING, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company;
FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2019-00048001-CU-OE-CTL (Filed Sept. 11, 2019), from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on Dec. 6, 2019.

The Southern District of California assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02337-BEN-BLM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of failure to pay minimum wages
and to pay overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

NPM Staffing is a privately held workforce management and temporary
staffing services. Fairfield Residential LLC is a real estate
company.[BN]

Defendant NPM Staffing is represented by:

          Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq.
          Anahi Cruz, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: 213 612 2500
          Facsimile: 213 612 2501
          E-mail: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com
                  anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com


OASIS CATERING: Palacios Seeks Minimum Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARTA NICOLASA PALACIOS and YORMAN ANIBAR RABANALES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OASIS CATERING,
INC. D/B/A TRADITIONS EATERY and SCOTT FAGAN, as an individual,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06871 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019), seeks to recover
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law arising from underpaid minimum wages.

Ms. Palacios was employed by the Defendants from April 2016 until
October 2018. Mr. Rabanales was employed by the Defendants from
March 2016 until July 2019.  The Plaintiffs' primary duties were as
a food preparer, while performing other miscellaneous duties.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs legally prescribed minimum wage for their hours worked
from April 2016 until October 2018, a blatant violation of the
minimum wage provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.

Oasis Catering is a food and beverages company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: 718 263-9591


ONE BRANDS: Misrepresents ONE Protein Bars, Sebastian Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Sebastian, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ONE BRANDS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
and THE HERSHEY COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-00009-L-MDD (S.D. Cal., Jan. 2, 2020), arises out of the
Defendants' unlawful merchandising practices with respect to its
ONE protein bars, which are sold in a variety of flavors.

The Defendants market, advertise and label the Products as
containing only 1 gram of sugar and 5 milligrams of cholesterol and
as having 9 grams of dietary fiber. The Plaintiff alleges that
these uniform, material representations are false and misleading
because the Products contain substantially more sugar and
cholesterol than the listed amounts and virtually no dietary fiber.
According to independent laboratory testing of the Birthday Cake
flavor of the Products, for example, the Products contain on
average 40% more sugar, 96% more cholesterol, and 96% less dietary
fiber than the amounts represented on the Product labels.

According to the complaint, due to the overage in sugar, the
Product brand name "ONE" is also false and misleading, including
because it is coupled with the statement on the Primary Display
Panel, i.e. the front panel of the Products, that the Products
contain just "1G SUGAR." Reasonable consumers purchased the
Products believing, among other things, that they were accurately
represented, including because the Product packaging contained
accurate label information. Reasonable consumers would not have
purchased the Products if they had known about the
misrepresentations and omissions, or would have purchased them on
different terms.

Plaintiff Brittany Sebastian is a resident of San Diego,
California, who purchased the Products during the class period. The
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop the Defendants' unlawful
conduct in the labeling and marketing of the Products.

The Defendants manufacture, label, market, promote, advertise, and
sell ONE protein bar Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Naomi Spector, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          1501 San Elijo Road South, Ste. 104
          San Marcos, CA 92078
          Phone: 310.400.1053
          Fax: 212.202.6364
          Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Fishon Files Suit Over False Ad
----------------------------------------------------
Eric Fishon, Alicia Pearlman and Patrick Yang, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Peloton
Interactive, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-11711, (S.D. N.Y.,
December 20, 2019), asserts claims for violation of New York's
consumer protection and false advertising statutes, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.  The Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages, statutory penalties and injunctive relief.

Peloton is an exercise equipment and media company. Peloton markets
and sells its subscription-based, on-demand fitness library for a
monthly price of $39 to purchasers of the Peloton Bike and Peloton
Tread.

As part of Peloton subscriptions, they offer unlimited access to a
growing library of live streaming and on demand classes, scenic
rides, real-time performance tracking and unlimited accounts. Said
content is protected by various intellectual property laws. In
April 2018, Peloton received a cease-and-desist letter regarding
its alleged copyright infringement of many songs appearing in
classes in its on-demand class library. Peloton was sued by the
National Music Publishers Association seeking more than $150
million in damages, alleging that Peloton has been using their
musical works for years in its workout videos without proper
licensing, resulting in lost income for songwriters. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
     444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
     New York, New York 10022
     Telephone: (646) 933-1000
     Email: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com

            - and -

     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     Adam Prom, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
     Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
     Chicago, Illinois 60602
     Telephone: (312) 214-7900
     Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
            aprom@dicellolevitt.com

            - and -

     Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
     J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
     KELLER LENKNER LLC
     150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
     Chicago, Illinois 60606
     Telephone: (312) 741-5220
     Email: nl@kellerlenkner.com

PLANTRONICS INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Jan. 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Plantronics, Inc. (PLT)
Class Period: 7/2/2018 - 11/5/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-plt   

Yunji Inc. (YJ)
Class Period: American Depository Shares issued either in or after
the May 2019 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-yj   
           

Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (AFI)
Class Period: 3/6/2018 - 11/4/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-afi              

Wanda Sports Group Company Limited (WSG)
Class Period: securities issued either in or after the July 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 17, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-wsg  


If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
[GN]



PLANTRONICS INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Jan. 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action that has been filed on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Plantronics, Inc. ("Plantronics" or the "Company") (PLT) between
January 2, 2018 and November 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Plantronics securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than January 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the
actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions.

Plantronics investors who wish to learn more about the litigation
and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.

Plantronics, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Santa
Cruz, California, designs, manufactures, and markets integrated
communications and collaboration solutions.

Plaintiffs allege that, throughout the Class Period, Plantronics
made materially false or misleading statements, failing to disclose
that (1) the Company had engaged in channel stuffing to
artificially increase its sales; (2) the Company's internal
controls over inventory levels were not effective; and (3) the
Company had not adequately monitored inventory levels leading up to
multiple product launches.

On November 5, 2019, Plantronics disclosed a $65 million reduction
in channel inventory "by reducing sales to channel partners" and
significantly lowered its fiscal 2020 guidance. The same day,
Plantronics announced that the Executive Vice President of Global
Sales, Jeff Loebbaka, was departing the Company. On that news, the
price of Plantronics common stock fell $14.44 per share, or 36.61%,
from a closing price of $39.44 on November 5, 2019, to close at
$25.00 per share on November 6, 2019, on extremely elevated trading
volume.

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com.

Follow us for updates on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/LieffCabraser.

Source/Contact for Media Inquiries Only

         Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         Telephone: 1-800-541-7358
[GN]


PLANTRONICS INC: Pawar Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
Plantronics, Inc. (NYSE: PLT) from July 2, 2018 through November 5,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Plantronics, Inc. investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the class action, go
http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/plantronics-inc/or call Vik Pawar,
Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had engaged in channel stuffing to
artificially boost sales; (2) the Company's internal control over
inventory levels was not effective; (3) the Company had not
adequately monitored inventory levels ahead of multiple product
launches, where the new models would displace demand for aging
products; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements regarding
Plantronics's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
13, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

No class has been certified.  Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one.  You may hire
counsel of your choice.  You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class.  Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.

Contact:

         Vik Pawar, Esq.  
         Pawar Law Group  
         20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410  
         New York, NY 10007  
         Tel: (917) 261-2277  
         Fax: (212) 571-0938  
         Email: info@pawarlawgroup.com  
[GN]




POP A LOCK: Improperly Pays Technicians' OT Wages, Tewelde Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Tewelde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. POP A LOCK OF NORTHERN NEW JERSEY, Case No.
2:20-cv-00036 (D.N.J., Jan. 2, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law, for the Defendant's failure to pay its
technician employees at one and one-half times their hourly rate
for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

During the course of a given workweek, technicians routinely work
more than 40 hours. They are, however, routinely denied pay at one
and one half times their ordinary rate during hours worked over 40
in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA and the NJWHL, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a roadside
technician.

The Defendant is a franchise owned and operated by Tom and
Charlotte Williams, employing technicians in northern and central
New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Dressel, Esq.
          DRESSEL/MALIKSCHMITT LLP
          90 Bayard Street, Suite 2C
          New Brunswick, NJ 08525
          Phone: (848) 202-9323
          Fax: (201) 567-7337
          Email: andrew@d-mlaw.com


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Jan. 27 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Canopy Growth Corporation (CGC)
Class Period: 6/21/2019 - 11/13/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 20, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-cgc

Grubhub Inc. (GRUB)
Class Period: 7/30/2019 - 10/28/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 21, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-grub           

Baxter International Inc. (BAX)
Class Period: 2/21/2019 - 10/23/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-baxter-international-inc-securities-litigation-3

Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU)
Class Period: 2/15/2019 - 8/2/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 27, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-pru    

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                      About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]



PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Prudential Financial, Inc. ("Prudential " or the "Company") (NYSE:
PRU ) common stock between February 15, 2019 and August 2, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Prudential investors have until
January 27, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Prudential investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On August 1, 2019, Prudential revealed a $208 million charge to its
second quarter 2019 earnings due to changes in mortality
assumptions in its Individual Life business segment. Additionally,
the Company revealed that the change in mortality assumptions would
negatively impact quarterly earnings by $25 million for the
foreseeable future.

On this news, Prudential's stock price fell $10.22, or over 10%, to
close at $91.09 per share on August 1, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

Then on August 2, 2019, Prudential disclosed that the Individual
Life segment declined by $178 million over the prior year period,
primarily due to the $208 million charge.

On this news, Prudential's stock price fell $2.53, or over 5%, to
close at $88.56 per share on August 2, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's reserve assumptions failed to
account for adversely developing mortality experience in its
Individual Life business segment; (2) that the Company was not
over-reserved, but instead, its reported reserves, particularly for
the Individual Life business segment, were insufficient to satisfy
its future policy benefits liabilities; and (3) that the Company
had materially understated its liabilities and overstated net
income as a result of flawed assumptions in calculating mortality
experience.

If you purchased Prudential common stock, have information, would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]



QUAD/GRAPHICS: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Up Fintech Holding Limited (NASDAQ: TIGR)
Class Period: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to Up Fintech's initial
public offering conducted on or about March 20, 2019 (the "IPO" or
"Offering"); or (2) between March 20, 2019 and May 16, 2019, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period")
Deadline: January 6, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/tigr  

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Fintech was experiencing a material decrease in
commissions because of a negative trend related to risk-averse
investors in the market; (2) Fintech was unable to absorb costs
associated with the rapid growth of its business and its status as
a publicly listed company on a U.S. exchange; (3) Fintech was
incurring significant additional expenses related to, inter alia,
employee headcount and employee compensation and benefits; (4) all
of the foregoing had led to Fintech significantly increasing
operating costs and expenses; and (5) as a result, defendants'
statements regarding Up Fintech's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading.

Under Armour, Inc. (NYSE: UA; UAA)
Class Period: August 3, 2016 - November 1, 2019,
Deadline: January 6, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/uaa
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to quarter to
appear healthier, including to keep pace with their long-running
year-over-year 20% net revenue growth; (2) the Company had been
under investigation by and cooperating with the U.S. Department of
Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission since at least
July 2017; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.


Quad/Graphics, Inc. (NYSE: QUAD)
Class Period: February 21, 2018 - October 29, 2019
Deadline: January 6, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/quad
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's book business in United States was
underperforming; (2) as a result, the Company was likely to divest
its book business; (3) the Company was unreasonably vulnerable to
decreases in market prices; (4) to remain financially flexible
while market prices decreased, the Company was likely to cut its
quarterly dividend and expand its cost reduction programs; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

         Contact:
         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com, peretz@bgandg.com
[GN]



RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Frampton Living Trust Hits Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frampton Living Trust, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Resideo Technologies, Inc.;
Michael G. Nefkens and Joseph D. Ragan III, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-03133, (D. Minn., December 20, 2019), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of federal securities
laws.

Resideo is a global provider of comfort and security solutions
primarily in residential environments and was formed through a
spin-off from Honeywell International Inc. Resideo secured a
license to continue using the Honeywell Home brand of products for
40 years. However, Defendants failed to disclose that the spin-off
had negatively affected the company's sales, supply chain and gross
margins and that Resideo faced serious competition from Honeywell.

Resideo announced that its earnings significantly missed estimates
due to the lower sales of thermostats and the performance of the
residential thermal solutions business. In response to these
disclosures, the price of Resideo stock fell $5.73 per share, a
decline of over 37 percent.

Frampton Living Trust purchased Resideo common stock. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
      Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 389-0600
      Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
      Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com
             jbourne@pswlaw.com

             - and -

      Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
      Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      Email: ckeller@labaton.com
             ebelfi@labaton.com
             fmcconville@labaton.com


RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Pak Claims Merger With Venus Concept Unfair
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOON PAK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RESTORATION ROBOTICS, INC., VENUS CONCEPT INC., RYAN
RHODES, FREDERIC MOLL, JEFFREY BIRD, GIL KLIMAN, CRAIG TAYLOR,
SHELLEY THUNEN, and KEITH SULLIVAN, Case No. 1:19-cv-02237-UNA (D.
Del., Dec. 6, 2019), is brought on behalf of the shareholders of
Restoration Robotics arising from the Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the merger
between Restoration Robotics and Venus Concept Ltd.

On March 15, 2019, as amended on August 14, 2019, the Company's
Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement
and plan of merger and reorganization with the Venus, pursuant to
which, each outstanding share of Venus was converted into the right
to receive 8.6506 shares of Restoration Robotics common stock and
each outstanding share of Restoration Robotics common stock was
subject to a reverse stock split.

Immediately after the Merger, former Restoration Robotics
stockholders owned approximately 15% of the fully diluted common
stock of the Combined Company and former Venus shareholders owned
approximately 85% of the fully-diluted common stock of the Combined
Company (the "Exchange Ratio").

According to the complaint, on September 10, 2019, the Board
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading
proxy statement/prospectus on form 424B3 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act that recommended shareholders vote in favor of the
Merger. In touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, the Defendants included a
lower set of projections (the "Base Case Projections") that misled
shareholders as to the true value of Restoration Robotics.

Moreover, the Company's financial advisor, SVB Leerink LLC, either
at the direction of the Board or with the consent of the Board,
utilized these significantly lower Base Case Projections to create
implied equity ranges for the Company that presented the Merger
Consideration as "fair" to Restoration Robotics shareholders when
it was not, the Plaintiff alleges. The Board then proceeded to tout
the misleading fairness opinion as a positive reason for
Restoration Robotics shareholders to approve the Merger,
exacerbating the misrepresentation.

The Base Case Projections were created after the successful launch,
reception, and implementation of the ARTAS iX System. The Base Case
Projections were also created after Restoration Robotics received
Venus' input on the Merger. The Base Case Projections were provided
to no other parties and served no purpose other than their use in
SVB Leerink's fairness opinion, the lawsuit says.

Accordingly, by including the lower Base Case Projections results
in the summary of the discounted cash flow (DCF), the Proxy
misleads shareholders to think that the Exchange Ratio of the
Merger Consideration represented fair value for their Restoration
Robotics shares, the Plaintiff avers.

In sum, the Proxy contained materially false or misleading
statements, in violation of Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9. The
misleading Proxy was an essential link in the consummation of the
unfair Merger, as the Merger could not have been consummated
without the dissemination of the Proxy. The Proxy caused
Restoration Robotics shareholders harm, because it misled them to
accept an unfair portion in the Combined Company that was less than
the true value of the Company, the lawsuit added.

The Plaintiff was the owner of Restoration Robotics common stock
and held such stock since prior to the complained wrongs. The
Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, and
seeks to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations
of the Exchange Act.

Restoration Robotics is a medical technology company developing and
commercializing, the ARTAS (TM) System, a robotic device that
assists physicians in performing many of the repetitive tasks that
are a part of a follicular unit extraction surgery. The Company's
common stock traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "HAIR".

Venus Concept Inc. is the Combined Company that was created as a
result of the Merger, and currently trades on the NASDAQ under the
symbol "VERO". Venus is an innovative global medical technology
company that develops, commercializes, and delivers minimally
invasive and non-invasive medical aesthetic technologies and
related practice enhancement services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

               - and -

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Nemours Building
          1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984 3800


RIPPLE LABS: Files Final Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Martin, writing for the Coin Telegraph, reports that Ripple
has filed a motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit alleging that
it held an unregistered securities sale of its XRP tokens.

In court documents filed on Dec. 4, Ripple argues that the
plaintiffs' case is contradictory and "self-defeating." Alongside a
reiteration of previous arguments, the company now also claims
that, even if XRP were a security, the statute of repose had passed
before the lawsuit was brought to court.

In what is reportedly Ripple's last attempt to get the case thrown
out before the scheduled hearing date in mid-January, the company
reiterates its belief that XRP is not a security.

However, this latest filing adds the argument that, even if XRP
were a security, then the plaintiff's claim would not be
admissible, because the statute of repose only allows claims to be
made within three years of the security being offered to the
public.

Ripple sold XRP to the general public in coin offerings from
2013–2015, while the case was only brought to court in 2018, when
lead plaintiff Bradley Sostack alleged that Ripple misled investors
and sold XRP in violation of federal law.

Furthermore, the filing claims that Sostack has been unable to show
that he actually purchased XRP from the defendants or through an
initial coin offering. Sostack allegedly bought his XRP from an
unknown third party through an exchange in January 2018.

Will we find out whether XRP is a security?
The class-action lawsuit has been a constant back-and-forth between
the plaintiffs and Ripple. As Cointelegraph reported in August, the
suit gained traction this summer when Sostack appealed to SEC
guidelines.

Ripple subsequently moved to dismiss the case in September, stating
that the court need not resolve whether XRP is a security. At the
time, crypto-focused lawyer Jake Chervinsky, Esq. said:

"They make twelve separate arguments for dismissal of the
plaintiff's claims. Not a single one squarely addresses whether XRP
is an unregistered security."

The XRP price seems to be unaffected by the news, trading up 1.62%
at $0.221, according to Coin360. [GN]



ROSE LAW FIRM: Engelbrecht Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Rose Law Firm,
PLLC. The case is styled as Susan Engelbrecht, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Rose Law
Firm, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01049 (W.D. Wis., Dec. 26,
2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Rose Law Firm is a law firm in Hopkins, MN, dedicated to providing
victims of workplace discrimination and other employer misconduct
with experienced, personalized legal guidance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Curtiss Lein, Esq.
          Lein Law Offices
          P.O. Box 761
          Hayward, WI 54843
          Phone: (715) 634-4273
          Fax: (715) 634-5051
          Email: mlein@leinlawoffices.com


ROSEBUD LENDING: Sued Over Usurious Loan Rates
----------------------------------------------
Lashell Epperson, George Hengle, Sherry Blackburn, Clairmont
Morrison, Equilla Lavine, and Semetrica Shadwick, on behalf of
themselves and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Rodney M. Bordeaux, Vice Chairman of The Board of Directors for
REDCO and President of The Rosebud Sioux Tribe, in his official
capacities, Wayne Boyd, Chairman of The Board of Directors for
REDCO and Secretary of The Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Wizipan Little Elk,
Clay Colombe, Mindi Vavra, Fintech Financial, LLC, and John Does
Nos. 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00939 (E.D. V.A., December
20, 2019), seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief resulting
from violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

Plaintiffs alleges that Rosebud Lending, a lender formed by the
Rosebud Economic Development Corporation, the economic development
arm of federally-recognized Rosebud Sioux Tribe, provide loans that
carry triple-digit interest rates as high as 790% and are illegal
in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Rosebud Lending also entered into
agreements to make and collect on loans at usurious interest rates
with Fintech Financial, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs applied and/or availed loans from Rosebud Lending. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
     Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
     Casey S. Nash, Esq.
     KELLY GUZZO, PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Tel: (703) 424-7572
     Fax: (703) 591-0167
     Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
            aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
            casey@kellyguzzo.com


SEALED AIR: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. To determine your eligibility and get
free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with
case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery
assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will
be no cost or obligation to you.

Sealed Air Corporation (SEE)

SEE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 5, 2014
- August 6, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 31, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sealed-air-corporation-loss-form?prid=4752&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Sealed
Air Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Sealed Air had hired its
auditor, E&Y, pursuant to a conflicted and improper process and in
order to help facilitate defendants' efforts to engage in
accounting fraud; (b) Sealed Air's deduction of $1.49 billion in
connection with the Settlement was indefensible and done for the
improper purpose of artificially inflating the Company's financial
results; (c) Sealed Air had artificially inflated its earnings,
cash flows, and operating income during the Class Period; (d) as a
result of the above, Sealed Air's Class Period financial statements
were materially false and misleading and not prepared in
conformance with GAAP; and (e) as a result of the above, Sealed
Air's statements regarding its financial results, business, and
prospects were materially misleading.

UP Fintech Holding Limited (TIGR)

TIGR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Fintech American
Depository Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering conducted on or about March 20, 2019; or
(b) Fintech securities between March 20, 2019 and May 16, 2019.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 6, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/up-fintech-holding-limited-loss-form?prid=4752&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (i) Fintech was experiencing a
material decrease in commissions because of a negative trend
related to risk-averse investors in the market; (ii) Fintech was
unable to absorb costs associated with the rapid growth of its
business and its status as a publicly listed company on a U.S.
exchange; (iii) Fintech was incurring significant additional
expenses related to, inter alia, employee headcount and employee
compensation and benefits; (iv) all of the foregoing had led to
Fintech significantly increasing operating costs and expenses; and
(v) as a result, the documents filed by the Company in connection
with the initial public offering were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein, and the Company's Class Period statements were likewise
materially false and/or misleading.

Yunji Inc. (YJ)

YJ Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Yunji American
Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
May 2019 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 13, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/yunji-inc-loss-form?prid=4752&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) the Company was shifting
certain of its sales to its marketplace platform; (2) this supply
chain restructuring was likely to disrupt Yunji's relationships
with suppliers; (3) this supply chain restructuring was likely to
have an adverse impact on the Company's financial results; and (4)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]



SEATTLE CHILDREN'S: Stritmatter Kessler Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
KIRO 7 News reports that two lawyers with Stritmatter, Kessler,
Koehler and Moore Law Office in Seattle filed a class-action
lawsuit on Dec. 2 against Seattle Children's Hospital, according to
a news release from the law office.

A representative with the law office said the complaint is being
brought by three former child patients who were exposed to
Aspergillus due to building management negligence.

The lawyers said if the class certification is granted, the lawsuit
seeks to encompass all child patients who contracted the illness
while hospitalized at the Sandpoint building, going back to 2000.

The CEO of the hospital recently said that five deaths between 2001
and 2014 from surgical site infections from Aspergillus mold were
likely caused by the air handling systems that serve the operating
rooms.

Seattle Children's said it has had seven Aspergillus surgical site
infections since the summer of 2018. One of those patients also
died.

In November, routine air test results again revealed the presence
of Aspergillus in the air in three operating rooms and two
procedural areas at the main campus.

In an August news report, emails obtained by KIRO 7 show Seattle
Children's Hospital had a strategy of keeping information about the
deadly mold in its operating rooms under wraps, dating back to
2018.

Emails between Dr. Danielle Zerr, King County Public Health, and
the CDC during the hospital's 2018 aspergillus cases -- which led
to the death of one patient -- show a "reactive media strategy." It
instructs people to reveal important information about cases,
including whether the hospital "had any patients with a confirmed
aspergillus surgical site infection," only if asked about it.

Indeed, the strategy worked for 2018; the media only found out
about new aspergillosis cases in May 2019. [GN]


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fleming Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc. The case is styled as Jacqueline Fleming formerly
known as: Jacqueline Baker, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Select Portfolio Servicing,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08487 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 30,
2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. operates a mortgage servicing
company in the United States. The company specializes in the
servicing of single-family residential mortgage loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
                 mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


SOUTHERN ALUMINUM: Webb Seeks OT Pay for Hourly-Paid Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL WEBB, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SOUTHERN ALUMINUM MANUFACTURING ACQUISITION, INC., Case
No. 1:19-cv-01059-SOH (W.D. Ark., Dec. 6, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Mr. Webb was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid employee
within the three years relevant to the lawsuit.

Southern Aluminum is a manufacturer of linenless meeting, event,
and banquet tables and hospitality furniture. The company operates
a manufacturing facility in Magnolia, Arkansas, and has one
corporate headquarters that centralizes all pay, time, and human
resource policies so that they are the same across its
facility.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris W. Burks, Esq.
          Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
          WH LAW, PLLC
          1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (501) 891–6000
          E-mail: chris@whlawoffices.com
                  brandon@whlawoffices.com


STANCE INC: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. STANCE, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11229
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to
sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille
and to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and, therefore, denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), the Plaintiff contends. He adds that because the
Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.

Store Gift Card is an electronic promise, plastic card, or other
device that is redeemable at a single merchant or an affiliated
group of merchants that share the same name, mark or logo.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant operates Stance Stores across the United States.
Several of these retail stores are located in the Southern District
of New York. These retail stores constitute places of public
accommodation. The Defendant's retail stores provide to the public
important goods and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212 228 9795
          Facsimile: 212 982 6284


STAR SNACKS: Lowery Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Star Snacks Company
LLC. The case is styled as Gregory Lowery, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Star
Snacks Company LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02125-JHE (N.D.
Ala., Dec. 30, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Star Snacks LLC is a manufacturer and distributor of high-quality
branded nuts, trail mixes & dried fruits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles M Thompson, Esq.
          CHARLES M THOMPSON PC
          2539 John Hawkins Pkwy, Suite 101-149
          Hoover, AL 35244
          Phone: (205) 995-0068
          Fax: (866) 610-1650
          Email: CMTLAW@aol.com


STRYKER CORPORATION: Picetti Labor Suit Moved to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Robert Picetti, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. STRYKER
CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation; HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., a
New Jersey Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; Case No.
RG19044860, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Jan. 2, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00088 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum
wages, inaccurate wage statements, and unreimbursed business
expenses pursuant to the Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michele J. Beilke, Esq.
          Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq.
          Gabriel M. Huey, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Phone: 213-532-2000
          Facsimile: 213-532-2020
          Email: mbeilke@huntonAK.com
                 jtrankiem@huntonAK.com
                 ghuey@huntonAK.com


SUFFOLK ASPHALT: Asphalt Supply Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SUFFOLK ASPHALT CORP.
The case is styled as ASPHALT SUPPLY OF LONG ISLAND LLC, CROSS
ISLAND INDUSTRIES INC., SUFFOLK PAVING CORP., BOVE INDUSTRIES INC.
AND SKYLINE LLC OBO THEMSELVES & ALL OTHER BENEFICIARIES UNDER
ARTICLE 3-A OF LIEN LAW SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. SUFFOLK
ASPHALT CORP., CHRISTOPHER VECCHIA, Defendants, Case No.
624880/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Dec. 27, 2019).

The case type is stated as "E-FILED COMMERCIAL CASE".

Suffolk Asphalt Corporation is a business categorized under Asphalt
Paving Contractors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          PINKS LIPSHIE WHITE & NEMETH
          140 FELL COURT, STE 303
          HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788
          Phone: (631) 234-4400


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Pinnell Suit Over Violations of ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY PINNELL, JEREMY FERNANDEZ AND SHANE PERRILLOUX, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., DR. SOL J. BARER, KARE SCHULTZ, ROSEMARY
A. CRANE, AMIR ELSTEIN, MURRAY A. GOLDBERG, JEAN-MICHEL HALFON,
GERALD M. LIEBERMAN, ROBERTO A. MIGONE, DR. PARRY D. NISEN,
NECHEMIA J. PERES, RONIT SATCHI-FAINARO, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC., INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05738-MAK (E.D. Pa., Dec. 6, 2019),
arises from the Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty
and prudence, and failure to monitor fiduciaries of Teva
Pharmaceuticals Retirement Savings Plan pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plan's fiduciaries include Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the
Board of Directors of Teva and its current and former members, and
the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Investment Committee and any
former committees serving a similar function and its current and
former members.

According to the complaint, the Plan has nearly $2 billion dollars
in assets that are entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries.
The Plan's assets under management qualify it as a "jumbo" plan in
the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest
plans in the United States. As a jumbo plan, the Plan had
substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that
were charged against participants' investments.

The Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses
or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment
option that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent, the
Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period
(December 6, 2013 to June 28, 2019) the Defendants, as
"fiduciaries" of the Plan, breached the duties they owed to the
Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan
by, inter alia, failing to objectively and adequately review the
Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each
investment option was prudent, in terms of cost, and maintaining
certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or
similar investment options with lower costs and/or better
performance histories.

To make matters worse, Defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost
share class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, and
failed to consider collective trusts, commingled accounts, or
separate accounts as alternatives to the mutual funds in the Plan,
despite their lower fees. The Defendants' mismanagement of the
Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries,
constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and
loyalty, in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 1104. Their actions were
contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and
its participants millions of dollars, the lawsuit says.

Jerry Pinnell is a citizen and resident of Phoenix, Arizona. Shane
Perrilloux resides in Madisonville, Louisiana. Jeremy Fernandez
resides in Hollywood, Florida. During their employment, the
Plaintiffs participated in the Plan investing in the options
offered by the Plan.

According to the complaint, each Plaintiff has standing to bring
this action on behalf of the Plan because each of them participated
in the Plan and were injured by the Defendants' unlawful conduct.
The Plaintiffs are entitled to receive benefits in the amount of
the difference between the value of their accounts currently, or as
of the time their accounts were distributed, and what their
accounts are or would have been worth, but for the Defendants'
breaches of fiduciary duty.

Teva is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware and is
headquartered in North Wales, Pennsylvania. The company describes
itself as a global pharmaceutical leader and the world's largest
generic medicines producer. Teva is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Israel-based Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103


TIBETAN JAPANESE: Secundino Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
OCTAVIO SECUNDINO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIBETAN JAPANESE RESTAURANT NY LLC d/b/a
TIBETAN JAPANESE RESTAURANT, TIBETAN JAPANESE RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a
TIBETAN JAPANESE RESTAURANT, LOBSANG GAWA, and NGA WANG JAMDOL,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06870 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019), seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully
refuse to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned overtime compensation
and lawfully earned "spread of hours" premium in direct
contravention of the FLSA and NYLL.

In March 2019, the Plaintiff was hired to work at the Defendants'
restaurant as a non-exempt dishwasher, porter, and stock person.
The Plaintiff worked at the Restaurant in those capacities until
August 21, 2019.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese Fusion restaurant known
as "Tibetan Japanese Restaurant," located at 7526 37th Avenue, in
Jackson Heights, New York. The "Individual Defendants" are
partners, owners, directors, proprietors, supervisors, and/or
managing agents of TJR LLC, who actively participate in the
day-to-day operations of the Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102


TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Faces McNear Suit Over Decline in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
David McNear, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRULIEVE CANNABIS CORP., KIM RIVERS, and MOHAN
SRINIVASAN, Case No. 1:19-cv-07289 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2019), is
brought by persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Trulieve securities between September 25, 2018, and
December 17, 2019, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On September 25, 2018, Trulieve filed a listing statement with the
Canadian Securities Exchange following Trulieve, Inc.'s merger with
Schyan Exploration Inc., forming Trulieve. The Listing Statement
stated that the Company had $9.7 million in biological assets for
fiscal year 2017. On November 19, 2018, Trulieve filed with the CSE
its Financial Statements and Management Discussion and Analysis for
the period ended September 30, 2018. The 3Q 2018 Financials were
signed by the Defendant Rivers. The 3Q 2018 Financials were
accompanied by signed certifications by Defendants Rivers and
Srinivasan attesting that the financial statements contained no
misrepresentations and fairly presented the Company's financial
condition.

The Plaintiff contends that the statements were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Trulieve overstated its mark-up on its biological assets;
(2) therefore, Trulieve's reported gross profit was inflated; (3)
Trulieve engaged in an undisclosed related party real estate sale
with Defendant Rivers' husband; and (4) as a result, the
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the complaint.

On December 17, 2019, during market hours, Grizzly Research
published a report explaining that Trulieve had failed to disclose:
(i) real estate transactions with insiders; (ii) that rather than
high-quality indoor production, the vast majority of the Company's
marijuana was produced in low quality hoop houses; and (iii) the
Company's markup on biological assets was excessive and
unreasonable.

On this news, shares of Trulieve fell $1.51 per share or over 12.6%
to close at $10.40 per share on December 17, 2019, damaging
investors.  As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Trulieve securities during the Class
Period.

Defendant Trulieve, together with its subsidiaries, purports to
operate as a medical marijuana company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com


UNDER ARMOUR: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Up Fintech Holding Limited (NASDAQ: TIGR)
Class Period: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to Up Fintech's initial
public offering conducted on or about March 20, 2019 (the "IPO" or
"Offering"); or (2) between March 20, 2019 and May 16, 2019, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period")
Deadline: January 6, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/tigr  

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Fintech was experiencing a material decrease in
commissions because of a negative trend related to risk-averse
investors in the market; (2) Fintech was unable to absorb costs
associated with the rapid growth of its business and its status as
a publicly listed company on a U.S. exchange; (3) Fintech was
incurring significant additional expenses related to, inter alia,
employee headcount and employee compensation and benefits; (4) all
of the foregoing had led to Fintech significantly increasing
operating costs and expenses; and (5) as a result, defendants'
statements regarding Up Fintech's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading.

Under Armour, Inc. (NYSE: UA; UAA)
Class Period: August 3, 2016 - November 1, 2019,
Deadline: January 6, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/uaa
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to quarter to
appear healthier, including to keep pace with their long-running
year-over-year 20% net revenue growth; (2) the Company had been
under investigation by and cooperating with the U.S. Department of
Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission since at least
July 2017; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.


Quad/Graphics, Inc. (NYSE: QUAD)
Class Period: February 21, 2018 - October 29, 2019
Deadline: January 6, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/quad
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's book business in United States was
underperforming; (2) as a result, the Company was likely to divest
its book business; (3) the Company was unreasonably vulnerable to
decreases in market prices; (4) to remain financially flexible
while market prices decreased, the Company was likely to cut its
quarterly dividend and expand its cost reduction programs; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

         Contact:
         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com, peretz@bgandg.com
[GN]



UNITI GROUP: Queder Sues Over Decline of Common Stock Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
PHIL QUEDER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. UNITI GROUP INC. f/k/a COMMUNICATIONS SALES & LEASING,
INC., MARK A. WALLACE and KENNETH A. GUNDERMAN, Case No.
4:19-cv-00873-BSM (E.D. Ark., Dec. 6, 2019), is brought on behalf
of all investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired Uniti
securities between April 20, 2015, and February 15, 2019,
inclusive, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On March 26, 2015, Uniti filed a Form 8-K with the SEC disclosing
approval of its spin-off from Windstream Holdings, Inc.
Simultaneously, Windstream became Uniti's main customer.

On September 21, 2017, hedge fund Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd.,
the owner of more than 25% of Windstream's unsecured notes due
2023, provided written notice to Windstream that the spin-off of
Uniti constituted a sale and leaseback in breach of the notes'
indenture.

On February 15, 2019, United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman
released Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law declaring that
Windstream breached the indenture and awarding Aurelius a monetary
judgment in the amount of $310,459,959.10 plus interest.
On this news, the price of the Uniti's common stock declined $7.47
per share from a close of $19.98 per share of Uniti common stock on
February 15, 2019, to a close of $12.51 per share of Uniti common
stock on February, 19, 2019, a drop of approximately 37.39%.

Over the course of the next three trading days, the price of the
Uniti's common stock continued to plummet, closing at $9.23 per
share on February 22, 2019, an overall decline of 53.8%, the
lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff purchased Uniti securities within the Class Period
and, as a result, was damaged thereby.

Uniti identifies itself as a real estate investment trust ("REIT")
specialized in acquisition and construction of
essential-to-survival infrastructure in the communications
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corey D. McGaha, Esq.
          William T. Crowder, Esq.
          CROWDER MCGAHA LLP
          5507 Ranch Drive, Suite 202
          Little Rock, AR 72223
          Telephone: (501) 205-4027
          Facsimile: (501) 367-8208
          E-mail: cmcgaha@crowdermcgaha.com
                  wcrowder@crowdermcgaha.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com
                 pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


UP FINTECH: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Up Fintech Holding Limited (NASDAQ: TIGR)
Class Period: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to Up Fintech's initial
public offering conducted on or about March 20, 2019 (the "IPO" or
"Offering"); or (2) between March 20, 2019 and May 16, 2019, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period")
Deadline: January 6, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/tigr  

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Fintech was experiencing a material decrease in
commissions because of a negative trend related to risk-averse
investors in the market; (2) Fintech was unable to absorb costs
associated with the rapid growth of its business and its status as
a publicly listed company on a U.S. exchange; (3) Fintech was
incurring significant additional expenses related to, inter alia,
employee headcount and employee compensation and benefits; (4) all
of the foregoing had led to Fintech significantly increasing
operating costs and expenses; and (5) as a result, defendants'
statements regarding Up Fintech's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading.

Under Armour, Inc. (NYSE: UA; UAA)
Class Period: August 3, 2016 - November 1, 2019,
Deadline: January 6, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/uaa
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to quarter to
appear healthier, including to keep pace with their long-running
year-over-year 20% net revenue growth; (2) the Company had been
under investigation by and cooperating with the U.S. Department of
Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission since at least
July 2017; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.


Quad/Graphics, Inc. (NYSE: QUAD)
Class Period: February 21, 2018 - October 29, 2019
Deadline: January 6, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/quad
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's book business in United States was
underperforming; (2) as a result, the Company was likely to divest
its book business; (3) the Company was unreasonably vulnerable to
decreases in market prices; (4) to remain financially flexible
while market prices decreased, the Company was likely to cut its
quarterly dividend and expand its cost reduction programs; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

         Contact:
         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com, peretz@bgandg.com
[GN]



UP FINTECH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. To determine your eligibility and get
free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with
case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery
assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will
be no cost or obligation to you.

Sealed Air Corporation (SEE)

SEE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 5, 2014
- August 6, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 31, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sealed-air-corporation-loss-form?prid=4752&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Sealed
Air Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Sealed Air had hired its
auditor, E&Y, pursuant to a conflicted and improper process and in
order to help facilitate defendants' efforts to engage in
accounting fraud; (b) Sealed Air's deduction of $1.49 billion in
connection with the Settlement was indefensible and done for the
improper purpose of artificially inflating the Company's financial
results; (c) Sealed Air had artificially inflated its earnings,
cash flows, and operating income during the Class Period; (d) as a
result of the above, Sealed Air's Class Period financial statements
were materially false and misleading and not prepared in
conformance with GAAP; and (e) as a result of the above, Sealed
Air's statements regarding its financial results, business, and
prospects were materially misleading.

UP Fintech Holding Limited (TIGR)

TIGR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Fintech American
Depository Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering conducted on or about March 20, 2019; or
(b) Fintech securities between March 20, 2019 and May 16, 2019.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 6, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/up-fintech-holding-limited-loss-form?prid=4752&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (i) Fintech was experiencing a
material decrease in commissions because of a negative trend
related to risk-averse investors in the market; (ii) Fintech was
unable to absorb costs associated with the rapid growth of its
business and its status as a publicly listed company on a U.S.
exchange; (iii) Fintech was incurring significant additional
expenses related to, inter alia, employee headcount and employee
compensation and benefits; (iv) all of the foregoing had led to
Fintech significantly increasing operating costs and expenses; and
(v) as a result, the documents filed by the Company in connection
with the initial public offering were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein, and the Company's Class Period statements were likewise
materially false and/or misleading.

Yunji Inc. (YJ)

YJ Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Yunji American
Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
May 2019 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 13, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/yunji-inc-loss-form?prid=4752&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) the Company was shifting
certain of its sales to its marketplace platform; (2) this supply
chain restructuring was likely to disrupt Yunji's relationships
with suppliers; (3) this supply chain restructuring was likely to
have an adverse impact on the Company's financial results; and (4)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]

VANS INC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vans, Inc. The case
is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Vans, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-11809 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Vans is an American manufacturer of skateboarding shoes and related
apparel, based in Santa Ana, California and owned by VF
Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: UK Dieselgate Class Action Commences
------------------------------------------------------
Tom Sharpe, writing for AM Online, reports that a class action
representing more than 90,000 UK Volkswagen owners will aim to
determine whether its emissions-reducing defeat device software was
designed to defeat clean air laws.

The Volkswagen Group is denying that the software it used was an
illegal defeat device but a preliminary High Court hearing would
focus on whether software fitted to 1.2 million vehicles was
designed to cheat clean air laws in the UK.

If the biggest class action of its kind in the UK is successful in
the two-week preliminary hearing starting Dec. 2, a full trial is
expected to take place in 2020.

A spokesman for Slater Gordon, which is representing the majority
of the UK customers, told AM this morning that Mr Justice Waksman
will be asked to rule on whether the software installed in the cars
was a 'defeat device' under EU regulations.

He will also be asked to determine whether the High Court is bound
by The German Federal Motor Transport Authority's finding that the
software installed by VW was a defeat device.

VW admitted to manipulating 11 million vehicles worldwide to fool
emissions tests back in September 2015.

In the US, the OEM paid out $4.3 billion in civil and criminal
penalties after pleading guilty to criminal charges and total costs
for VW are estimated to have reached $21bn.

VW will also pay between $87m and $127m in compensation to
customers in Australia, despite having made no admission of
liability.

The OEM maintains that its engine software did not breach the law
and said in a statement that "there has never been a defeat device
installed in any of its vehicles in the UK".

Commenting on the proceedings at the High Court, a Volkswagen
spokesman said: "The purpose of the hearing is to determine two
specific questions of law, namely whether the English & Welsh High
Court is bound by the findings of the German Federal Motor
Transport Authority (KBA) or the British Vehicle Certification
Agency (VCA), and whether the legal definition under Article 3 (10)
of Regulation 715/2007/EC of a defeat device is met if certain
factors are fulfilled. Volkswagen says the answer to both questions
is no."

He added: "Volkswagen Group continues to defend robustly its
position in the High Court in London. It remains Volkswagen Group's
case that the claimants did not suffer any loss at all and that the
affected vehicles did not contain a prohibited defeat device. The
decision does not affect any questions of liability or loss."

Quoted in The Guardian newspaper, Gareth Pope, head of group
litigation at Slater Gordon, said: "VW has had plenty of
opportunity to come clean, make amends and move on from this highly
damaging episode.

"But instead it's chosen to spend millions of pounds denying the
claims our clients have been forced to bring against it rather than
paying that to their own customers in compensation."

Back in September the Volkswagen Group branded allegations that
chief executive Herbert Deiss and chairman Dieter Poetsch were
guilty of market manipulation in connection to the dieselgate
scandal as "groundless".

The German carmaker's senior executives were formally charged with
market manipulation in Brunswick, Lower Saxony, Germany, on
September 24, over allegations that they intentionally failed to
inform investors early enough about the diesel emissions scandal.

Former Group chief executive Martin Winterkorn was also charged.

The court proceedings come at a time that sees the Volkswagen Group
attempt to re-brand itself as a market leader in zero emissions
elecrtric vehicles (EVs). [GN]


WANDA SPORTS: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Jan. 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Plantronics, Inc. (PLT)
Class Period: 7/2/2018 - 11/5/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-plt   

Yunji Inc. (YJ)
Class Period: American Depository Shares issued either in or after
the May 2019 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-yj   
           

Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (AFI)
Class Period: 3/6/2018 - 11/4/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-afi              

Wanda Sports Group Company Limited (WSG)
Class Period: securities issued either in or after the July 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 17, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-wsg  


If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
[GN]

WAWA INC: Fisher Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WAWA, INC. The case
is styled as John Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others
who are similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAWA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06179-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Dec. 30, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Wawa, Inc. is an American chain of convenience stores and gas
stations located along the East Coast of the United States,
operating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
          3300 TWO COMMERCE SQ
          2001 MARKET ST
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 963-0600
          Email: jgolan@barrack.com


WAWA INC: Roessle Files Fraud Class Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WAWA, INC. The case
is styled as Rob Roessle, individually and on behalf of all others
who are similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAWA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06161-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Dec. 27, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Wawa, Inc. is an American chain of convenience stores and gas
stations located along the East Coast of the United States,
operating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon Jason Lambiras, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3600
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3036
          Fax: (215) 875-4604
          Email: jlambiras@bm.net



WOOLWORTHS GROUP: Sued for Underpaying Supermarket Workers
----------------------------------------------------------
Niyati Shetty, writing for Reuters, reports that Woolworths Group
Ltd on Dec. 2 said a class action lawsuit has been proposed against
Australia's biggest grocery chain for underpaying supermarket
workers.

The company said it would fully defend itself against the
proceedings filed by a Canberra law firm.

In October, Woolworths said it had underpaid thousands of
supermarket workers for years and will need to repay as much as
$200 million. [GN]



WSP USA INC: Ford Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Ford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WSP USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-11705 (S.D. N.Y., December 20, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

WSP provides technical expertise and strategic advice to clients in
the transportation & infrastructure, property & buildings,
environment, industry, resources (including mining and oil & gas)
and energy sectors, as well as offering project and program
delivery and advisory services. Ford worked for WSP providing
health and safety services. WSP paid Ford a day-rate with no
overtime compensation and classified him as an independent
contractor, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com
             rschreiber@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

             - and -

      Joseph A. Fitapelli
      Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


YUNJI INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Jan. 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Plantronics, Inc. (PLT)
Class Period: 7/2/2018 - 11/5/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-plt   

Yunji Inc. (YJ)
Class Period: American Depository Shares issued either in or after
the May 2019 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-yj   
           

Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (AFI)
Class Period: 3/6/2018 - 11/4/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-afi              

Wanda Sports Group Company Limited (WSG)
Class Period: securities issued either in or after the July 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 17, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-wsg  


If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
[GN]



YUNJI INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. To determine your eligibility and get
free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with
case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery
assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will
be no cost or obligation to you.

Sealed Air Corporation (SEE)

SEE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 5, 2014
- August 6, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 31, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sealed-air-corporation-loss-form?prid=4752&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Sealed
Air Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Sealed Air had hired its
auditor, E&Y, pursuant to a conflicted and improper process and in
order to help facilitate defendants' efforts to engage in
accounting fraud; (b) Sealed Air's deduction of $1.49 billion in
connection with the Settlement was indefensible and done for the
improper purpose of artificially inflating the Company's financial
results; (c) Sealed Air had artificially inflated its earnings,
cash flows, and operating income during the Class Period; (d) as a
result of the above, Sealed Air's Class Period financial statements
were materially false and misleading and not prepared in
conformance with GAAP; and (e) as a result of the above, Sealed
Air's statements regarding its financial results, business, and
prospects were materially misleading.

UP Fintech Holding Limited (TIGR)

TIGR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Fintech American
Depository Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering conducted on or about March 20, 2019; or
(b) Fintech securities between March 20, 2019 and May 16, 2019.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 6, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/up-fintech-holding-limited-loss-form?prid=4752&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (i) Fintech was experiencing a
material decrease in commissions because of a negative trend
related to risk-averse investors in the market; (ii) Fintech was
unable to absorb costs associated with the rapid growth of its
business and its status as a publicly listed company on a U.S.
exchange; (iii) Fintech was incurring significant additional
expenses related to, inter alia, employee headcount and employee
compensation and benefits; (iv) all of the foregoing had led to
Fintech significantly increasing operating costs and expenses; and
(v) as a result, the documents filed by the Company in connection
with the initial public offering were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein, and the Company's Class Period statements were likewise
materially false and/or misleading.

Yunji Inc. (YJ)

YJ Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Yunji American
Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
May 2019 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 13, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/yunji-inc-loss-form?prid=4752&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) the Company was shifting
certain of its sales to its marketplace platform; (2) this supply
chain restructuring was likely to disrupt Yunji's relationships
with suppliers; (3) this supply chain restructuring was likely to
have an adverse impact on the Company's financial results; and (4)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]



[*] Aiken County Opts Out of National Opioid Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dede Biles, writing for Aiken Standard, reports that Aiken County
won't be participating in a national class action lawsuit that is
seeking compensation for damage caused by the opioid crisis.

During its meeting Nov. 19, County Council unanimously approved a
consent agenda that included a resolution to opt out of the
National Prescription Opiate Litigation.

A federal judge in Ohio is overseeing that suit, which claims that
manufacturers of prescription opioids "grossly misrepresented" the
risks of long-term use of those drugs for persons with chronic pain
and distributors "failed to properly monitor suspicious orders" of
the medications.

The resolution passed by County Council states the panel decided to
opt out of the national litigation "because, among other things,
the legal validity of the Class has been appealed to a Federal
Circuit (Court) of Appeals, it is unclear if any defendants will
choose to participate in the Negotiation Class process, the
County's lack of any significant input on financial and other
decisions by the Class, and the multitude of uncertainties and
unknowns concerning the Class."

According to the resolution, County Council is a plaintiff in the
consolidated South Carolina state court action known as South
Carolina Opioid Litigation and made its decision after receiving
advice from legal counsel.

"We really didn't know what was going on (with the national class
action suit), and if we didn't opt out of it, we would have been
stuck with whatever happened," said County Administrator Clay
Killian earlier this week. "They (legal counsel) felt our options
were more diverse if we got out of the class. We will continue to
pursue our suit, but it just won't be in that federal class action
process."

Following an executive session in October, County Council
unanimously approved a resolution to seek representation and advice
about suing to recoup losses suffered because of the opioid crisis
from the law firms of Marc J. Bern & Partners, which is
headquartered in New York, and Harrison White, which is based in
Spartanburg.

"We believe the county has suffered damages from the opioid
epidemic," said County Council Chairman Gary Bunker following that
vote. "Part of the process is going to be to try to quantify what
those damages are, and we will be working with a team that is
filing lawsuits in multiple counties in South Carolina."

Counties, municipalities and other local government entities had
until Nov. 22 to decide if they wanted to withdraw from the
National Prescription Opiate Litigation.

According to published reports, roughly 98% of around 34,000 local
governments decided they would continue to be part of the national
lawsuit.

Among the 541 that opted out, in addition to Aiken County, were
Horry County and Palm Beach County in Florida. [GN]



[*] Companies Spent Nearly $2.5BB Defending Against Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth K. Lee, writing for National Review, reports that last
year, companies spent nearly $2.5 billion defending against
class-action lawsuits, according to a recent survey of over 400
in-house lawyers at Fortune 1000 and other large companies. That
survey also revealed that in-house attorneys devote about 20 hours
a week solely to class-action defense work. And these numbers are
expected to spike up further this year.

Conservatives have long inveighed against class-action lawsuits and
the plaintiffs' lawyers who champion them. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce publishes an annual list of lawsuits that it deems
frivolous, and class-action lawsuits abound on that list. For
example, the Chamber highlighted several class-action lawsuits
seeking millions of dollars against Starbucks for allegedly
defrauding customers by putting too much milk or ice (and not
enough coffee) in their coffee beverages. Not surprisingly,
class-action lawsuits are not conservatives' cup of tea.

Conservatives' criticism of class-action lawsuits largely rests on
two interrelated points.

First, they argue that consumers benefit little from class-action
lawsuits, while plaintiffs' lawyers reap millions of dollars. Most
of us have received class-settlement notices in the mail informing
us that we are eligible to receive a few dollars or perhaps a
coupon based on our past purchase -- and most of us promptly throw
away such notices. (Redemption rates in class actions are
notoriously low.) Yet the plaintiffs' lawyers typically receive 20
to 30 percent of the entire settlement fund for the class, which
will often be in the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

Second, conservatives argue that many companies settle meritless
class-action lawsuits because of the specter of a staggering
class-action judgment. Companies calculate that it's better to
settle even a frivolous lawsuit for a seven-figure sum than to risk
an eight- or nine-figure judgment based on the unpredictable whims
of a jury, according to this criticism

These critiques of class-action lawsuits amount to a shibboleth
among conservatives and big businesses. But don't count Brian T.
Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School, among them. He
boasts unimpeachable conservative credentials: He clerked for
Diarmuid O'Scannlain, a well-known conservative Ninth Circuit
judge, and then landed a coveted clerkship with Justice Antonin
Scalia. He also worked for Senator John Cornyn, is a stalwart of
the Federalist Society, and is a longtime reader of National
Review. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***